UPDATE: This story has been updated to correct an inaccuracy related to the Department of Education’s facilities assessment tool. School districts are required to use the state’s tool. 

New heating and air conditioning units, carpeting, windows, doors, asphalt and playgrounds: These are a few of the school facilities projects that will be financed by House Bill 521. 

Most school districts won’t get enough money from the state’s facilities fund to pay for a new building. In fact, just nine of Idaho’s 115 school districts are receiving at least $30 million, the estimated cost of a new elementary school. But school leaders are planning modest to major building improvements, from new roofs to replacement sprinkler systems and sidewalks, according to long-term facilities plans recently filed with the Idaho Department of Education. 

HB 521, enacted earlier this year, directs $1.5 billion to school districts for building and site upgrades. The bulk of the money comes from a $1 billion state facilities bond, which will be distributed in lump sums and divided between districts through an attendance-based formula.

But before districts can receive their share, the Department of Education must approve a 10-year facilities plan laying out how they intend to spend the money. As of Friday, the department has approved 25 facilities plans and $241.8 million in spending on local projects. The early finishers are expected to receive the money starting in October. 

Meanwhile, state and local education leaders say the long-range planning process required by HB 521 is serving a variety of purposes. It has pushed local school leaders to more closely analyze the scope of their facilities needs and prioritize the most urgent projects. 

“It was eye-opening, to say the least,” said Firth School District Superintendent Basil Morris. “We knew we had some issues. Then, when you really dig down deep into a facilities plan, you find that the cost of things is quite a lot.”

And for the state, the planning process is an accountability measure. It ensures that districts are spending the state funding within the parameters set by HB 521. Schools can only use the money for large-scale projects and can’t use it for routine maintenance, like fixing one broken window or filling a pothole. The state department plans to audit the spending each year, according to Spencer Barzee, eastern Idaho regional director for the Department of Education.

The facilities plans also fulfill a broader goal — one that’s in the interest of both state and local leaders. Altogether the plans will, for the first time, provide a statewide assessment of school facility conditions. A comprehensive picture of the demand should help policymakers weigh facilities spending in the future. 

“We’ll have numbers, statewide, of where the greatest needs are,” Barzee said. “It’s a way to say, ‘Hey, we appreciate the money here, but we still have additional needs.’”

How are needs assessed?

The Department of Education partnered with Jacobs Construction, an international company with a Boise office, to co-opt the firm’s assessment software and make it available to school districts. 

The computer tool asks local leaders to survey their buildings and sites and rate their condition. Facilities are broken down into 11 categories, including electrical, plumbing, roofing, fire and safety and heating, ventilation and air conditioning, among others. And there are four possible ratings — good, fair, poor and replace — determined by a measurement rubric.

A parking lot, for example, is in “good” condition if it has “no visible signs of distress or failure” and “routine maintenance will be adequate to maintain (its) existing function,” says the department’s rubric. A “fair” rating means the parking lot has minor fractures but remains usable without disruption, while a “poor” rating reflects major fractures affecting its usage. “Replace” is reserved for a lot “showing signs of failure” warranting “emergency attention.” 

The assessment tool then considers the ratings inputed and generates an estimated dollar amount that’s needed to elevate all the facilities to “good” condition. The goal of the standardized assessment was consistency, Barzee said.

“It enhances the credibility of all the data that we give legislators, that we look at and publish statewide,” he said. 

The facilities plans are due by July 1, 2025, and districts that miss the deadline won’t get their money. However, Barzee predicts that the vast majority of facilities plans will be finalized by January, well before the due date. 

“Districts are anxious to get their funds and get going on projects,” he said.

The Department of Education has approved the following districts’ facilities plans. The right column shows each district’s share of the state’s $1 billion facilities bond:

Where’s the money going?

Assessing facilities needs isn’t new for school districts. Local leaders have long conducted informal assessments to inform spending projections. But the state’s new assessment tool altered their perspective on long-term needs.

“I had a general idea what things would cost,” said Sugar-Salem School District Superintendent Jared Jenks. “But when you put that into real dollars for an entire replacement of a building or just parts of the building…I really thought that was eye-opening and informative.”

Sugar-Salem’s facilities plan calls for a $7.4 million in upgrades over the next decade. That includes installing a new elementary school roof for $500,000 and a high school roof for $1 million. HB 521’s attendance-based formula calculated Sugar-Salem’s share at $6.4 million.

Idaho Education News reviewed facilities plans from five districts and found that the most common and/or most expensive upgrades are related to heating and air conditioning, technology, site improvements — such as new asphalt, gravel, sprinklers or playground equipment — and specialty projects, like new locker room showers and carpets or handicap-accessible doors. 

Rockland School District estimated that it needs $710,000 over the next decade, Buhl said it requires $8.8 million and Madison is anticipating $17.6 million worth of facilities upgrades. The Madison figure didn’t include an estimated $60 million junior high school that’s targeted for fiscal year 2027.

Firth is getting $3.4 million from the state, which will cover less than two-thirds of the projects outlined in the district’s facilities plan. Morris, the superintendent, said district leaders intend to spend the money on upgrades to windows, doors and ventilation systems.

Whittling down the district’s most urgent priorities was a challenge, Morris said, as was abiding by the state’s spending restrictions. Many of Firth’s needs are related to athletics, and HB 521 explicitly bars the money from being spent on sports facilities.

“I am not super thrilled about some of the caveats in these funds,” Morris said, noting that provisions in the bill eliminated longstanding maintenance funds that paid for staff salaries. Firth will draw general fund money to cover those costs. “They should be able to figure out a way to divvy out this money in the proportionate way that people can do general maintenance and pay salaries.”

Still, Morris complimented the state’s effort to assess facilities needs and offer aid. “I think the state is doing the best that they can to try to provide the funds that are needed,” he said.